Hi, >> A well-known server implements 4.1.3 (dummy messages), and in practice, it >> seems to work out. Either the client caches and doesn't ask questions that >> would show the server is inconsistent, or the client doesn't cache and doesn't >> know the server is inconsistent. That is, there's a problem, but both of the >> likely client implementations tend to cover it up quite nicely. > >I agree that 4.1.3 is less objectionable than 4.1.2; it delivers less of a >surprise, and most clients probably wouldn't even recognize that they were >surprised.
Though it might seem so, I'm not a stubborn dumb mule. I just want a usable solution. So I could also live with these ghost messages. What about stating something like "ghost messages (as defined in RFC2180) are a valid response, which should force clients to NOOP to catchup". I just want clarification for the issue, be it a "NO [NOOPFIRST] Fetch response" or "valid NIL message response". Huh? Christof
